As to the beginning of the plays, a few remarks must be made. First of all, as appears from, amongst others, Burman (1994:299-301), the nândî which is the benediction of the gods, the brahmins and the king, belongs to the pûrvaranga which is dedicated to the gods and the happy outcome of the play to come. The following prarocanâ, or the announcement of the contents of the play, was originally the last important part of the pûrvaranga but as it was written by the playwright was shifted to the play proper. The same applies to the nândî in later times, according to Burman (1994:301). A closer look at our plays reveals the following observations (not necessarily in a chronological order!):
Apart from the classification above, it is remarkable that all blessings are dedicated to Vishnu in one or other appearance. This unifying feature perhaps made them suitable for adoption or even adaptation by the southern theatre under the patronage of Vishnuitic kings, maybe the Pallavas considering the chronological range. Or the other way around, this correspondence might be a sign of adaptation.
If we now fit these openings into our chronological classification, we see that there is a certain agreement between the two. Firstly, the oldest group shows the prarocanâ in the form of a mudrâlamkâra, at least if we exclude the Cârudatta. The Pancarâtra once again has an archaic feature: the mudrâlamkâra.
Secondly, the second old group either has the same archaic opening (Pratimâ), or already has the more modern interpretation of the nândî (Avimâraka). The Pratimâ shows, however, a less skilled mudrâlamkâra, as the names of Sugrîva and Vibhîshana are lacking. Therefore, I regard this play as later than the oldest group, but maybe older than the Avimâraka.
Thirdly, the later plays either have a more modern prarocanâ in the form of a description of the hero but not anymore in the form of a mudrâlamkâra, (Abhisheka, Ûrubhanga, Dûtavâkya, Bâlacarita), or a still more modern nândî (Madhyama, Karnabhâra, Dûtaghatotkaca). The presence of the Madhyama and the Dûtaghatotkaca in this latter group is further evidence of their later date in respect to the oldest group.
The origin of the bharatavâkyas remains unclear, although I cannot escape the impression that these benedictions were no more than standard phrases, as almost the same saying occurs in the great epic MBh. 12.308.134ab ya imâm prthivîm krtsnâm ekacchatrâm prashâsti ha and in the NSh 5.111cd prashâstvimâm mahârâjah prthivîm ca sasâgarâm (see Sukthankar 1921:17). The mysterious râjasimha may be only a variant for mahârâjah, and not just one of the 244 birudas of the Pallava king Narasimhavarman II (690-720 A.D.) as Tieken (1993:27-28) suggests. The benedictions may very well be later additions, replacing the original bharatavâkya, more in a line with the tradition of the region or the royal favours. Avimâraka in fact has two bharatavâkyas, where in the first nareshvara and in the second narasimha is invoked, which clearly indicates a later addition to the original blessing. If the bharatavâkyas with râjasimha prove to be added, it must have been done in a rather late century, as plays from all groups are involved, except for the most recent Madhyama. In that case the addition took place in the eight century, which age coincides with Narasimhavarman II's reign. In that case Tieken (1993:27-28) is right.
For the moment, I do not combine these observations with the statistical data, as the present study is primarily concerned with statistics. Furthermore, as long as we do not yet know the origin of the bharatavâkyas, and perhaps also of the openings, it is dangerous to link these observations with the figures from the previous chapters.